Why is Wiki so Terrified of Dr Judy Wood?

Posted: December 3, 2017 in Mid-East

I found this post, “wiki archive-5, request for assistance”, in editing.., in Wiki Archives.  Before it completely disappears into the rabbit-hole, I thought it should be copied and pasted, somewhere.  This seemed as good a spot as any:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_5

Dr. Judy Wood has been, and will continue to be, an increasingly important and critical figure in the 9/11 Truth Movement. It is not clear how many well respected scientists such as myself will be needed to form a “significant minority” opinion that Dr. Wood merits her own biography page at Wikipedia, but please count me in, and please let me know what it is going to take to get a biography up about her at Wikipedia — one that remains up without being removed. I may be able to circulate a signature page if need be at the up and coming “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” meeting in Madison, WI, for which Dr. Judy Wood is the leading scientist and the keynote speaker, though I would hope there is significant enough data avaiable on the Internet alone to make it obvious just how influential Dr. Wood has become for this movement. 75.36.200.38 14:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Sincerely, H. Nicole Young, Ph.D.

There are guidelines available that could help sustain an argument for retaining such an article. Consider reviewing WP:BIOWP:BLPWP:GAWP:RS, and WP:V for tips on what might be needed for such an article. —Aarktica 15:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Whatever you do, be sure to avoid making your case using WP:ILIKEIT rhetoric. —Aarktica 15:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Any subject must be notable with only neutral (more to that just being objective) and verifiable material. Neutrality is more achievable if the material is written be a disinterested party without COI, which may include holding strong feelings about a subject. Adrian M. H. 15:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Your proposed effort to “…circulate a signature page…” may be perceived as canvassing, and many Wikipedians frown on that. —Aarktica 15:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Anyone wishing to recreate the article should take a look at the deletion arguments that took place in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judy Wood and determine whether they can be cleared up within the guidelines above. There were some substantial issues raised with regards to her notability outside of the 9/11 Truth sphere. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe just create a redirect to 9/11 Truth Movement? She’s mentioned here:

While the so-called ‘Pod’ theory asserts that the jetliners bore some sort of explosive pods, a few members such as Judy Wood and former Labor Dept. economist Morgan Reynolds are proponents of what is called ‘No Boeing’ or ‘No-plane’ theory, which asserts that jetliners were not used at all to bring the towers down, going on to accuse major media networks of complicity in a supposed plot to broadcast a computer animationor CGI plane on live television using special effects technology.

CliffC 16:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

**

Now, I do wish someone would explain, to me, what it is Wiki has against factual evidence?  Is it the same problem, “Science”, suddenly has with reason and discernment?  Seems so, and this in particular, has dumbed-down the entire field.

Comments
  1. […] Why is Wiki so Terrified of Dr Judy Wood? December 3, 2017 […]

    Like

    • Thomas Potter says:

      If your death was determined to be homicide by gunshot, the forensic investigation better report a bullet hole in your body. Would the coroner’s report of homicide by gunshot be a theory or a conclusion from ALL of the evidence? You can’t present a theory in court. This is why Dr. Wood’s work is irrefutable. She only presents evidence and an analysis of that evidence. There is no use for a theory in forensic science. Either you know something or you don’t. That is why those in charge of a cover up don’t want people to look at the evidence in Dr. Wood’s book. Dr. Wood does not ask you to believe her. She only wants you to believe yourself and think for yourself and look at the evidence yourself and not argue about opinions of theories of speculation of ideas. That is what keeps a cover up in place. Those of us who have read Dr. Wood’s book know this to be true.

      The evidence is that the buildings turned to dust right before your eyes.

      Remember that the empirical EVIDENCE tells us that the majority of the buildings turned into dust in mid air. (everyone saw it happen right before their eyes) Therefore, something that can do this (turn it into dust in mid air) must exist. That is the proof that it exists. It happened. You don’t need the serial numbers for the gizmo to know what happened. When “white man” first arrived on the American continent with firearms, indigenous people did not need to know the serial numbers of their weapons to know what they can do. They didn’t need to have seen such weapons in order to know that there exists a weapon that can fire a piece of metal fast enough to kill their brothers. Likewise, by the end of the day on August 6, 1945, the people living near Hiroshima, Japan, did not need to understand how a nuclear bomb works in order to know that there exists a technology that can produce enormous amounts of heat or to know that there exists a super-duper Kinetic Energy Weapon (KEW) that is capable of destroying an entire city. So as you can plainly see, “The evidence is that the buildings turned to dust right before your eyes.” is an accurate statement.

      Remember, Directed Energy is a category. Those promoting disinformation claim it is a specific device. That’s like claiming the category of Kinetic Energy means a pea shooter or a slingshot. Dr. Wood does not name a weapon. What she does present is a comprehensive forensic investigation of what happened. Dr. Wood does not make any statement as to a device or where it was located. Only those promoting disinformation have made such claims. Why do you think that is?

      Here’s a hint The EVIDENCE Dr. Wood has gathered is overwhelming, conclusive, and indisputable EVIDENCE and cannot be refuted. If this EVIDENCE became widely known, it would incriminate a lot of people and undermine the power structure. Now, who has a dog in this fight?

      This is why Wiki disregards Dr. Wood.

      Liked by 1 person

      • annebeck58 says:

        I cannot even say how much I like your comment; it’s perfect.
        That clip, added, of newsman; “good god. …it’s covered in smoke.. pieces of building falling..” But, of course, it was not smoke covering anything. It was not being, “covered”, at all. Pieces were not falling, or did not land if they had fallen, and the most of this world simply ignored the truth because this man spoke with such passion, evoking the name of their god….
        It is absolutely sad that so many remain so absolutely oblivious to the truth, and have such terrible cognitive dissonance when the truth is brought to them. It is sad. And, it is maddening. What a world!

        Like

        • Thomas Potter says:

          Your Alarm !

          Will the “9/11 Grand Jury” or the “Dark Overlord Hacker Group” cover up this evidence? Of course they will because both are a ruse to divert public attention from real evidence.

          Words from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, in the Gospel of Matthew, were found by a firefighter in March 2002, under the Tully Road, a temporary truck route that covered the last remnants of the south tower. The pages of the Bible in which they were printed had fused to a chunk of steel as the World Trade Center turned to dust in mid-air, to be found only months later.

          “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evildoer. On the contrary, whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go two with him. Give to the person who asks you for something, and do not turn away from the person who wants to borrow something from you.”

          The fabric of the human mind is flexible, but the strings of credulity can only stretch out so far, and then incredulity settles in. The image above depicts an artifact residing in the 9/11 Museum of an open Bible fused to a hunk of steel wreckage, with some of the steel overlapping the pages after it was softened by a type of directed energy. How could this happen and not have burned the paper yet the result can clearly be seen?

          The autoignition point of paper has a range of from 440 – 470°F, depending on the type of paper. Steel melts at 2500°F. How then, did this artifact of Bible pages become “fused” with steel, without the paper combusting into a blackened mass of ashes?

          Revisit that day, and remember all the images of showers of paper floating down through the air and scattering all over the sidewalks and streets, when the towers were destroyed. These papers were intact and surely not burned. What process was at work that could turn steel and concrete towers to dust, and yet not affect paper?

          A process used in directed energy technology can cause a dissociation and alteration of the molecular structure of metal, to fuse with combustible objects and appear as if the materials melted together, but with no discernable evidence of heat or combustion.

          So evidently, a technology exists which can accomplish those results, the results seen in the Bible papers fused to the steel. This is not a miracle, other than this technology being able to appear miraculous to most people. Arthur C. Clarke once opined: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Other forces were at work the day of 9/11, other than magic or the hand of the Divine.

          Very much related to this anomalous artifact in the 9/11 Museum, is another one found in the ruins of an almost forgotten and seldom mentioned building which was immediately destroyed on the morning of 9/11.

          St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox church, just across the street from the south side of the South Tower, or WTC-2. When retrieval of the relics in the church was undertaken in the following days, only a few pieces survived and one find was called a miracle. “The great miracle, was the recovery of an icon of St. Spyridon. The silver around the icon had melted, but the paper icon had not been burnt.”

          This discovery was one of the church’s most holy relics, and it was declared a miracle because the silver onlay applied to a paper icon of St. Spyridon had “dustified”, leaving the paper intact and unscorched. The melting point of silver is 1,763°F.

          The best collection of evidence making the case for a directed energy technology at work and used as a weapon on 9/11, can be found at the website of Judy Wood, Ph.D – and in her landmark book: ”Where Did The Towers Go?”.

          A copy of the book is available at The Library of Congress.

          https://lccn.loc.gov/2010916516

          Or, you have the option of purchasing a copy from Amazon.

          This download is the Foreword and book review of “WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?” by Eric Larsen, Professor Emeritus at John Jay College of Criminal Justice 1971 – 2006 (35 years), plus the Author’s Preface.

          http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/Where%20Did%20The%20Towers%20Go%20-%20Dr%20Judy%20Wood.pdf

          Like

          • annebeck58 says:

            Yes, yes, yes, and absolutely; yes!
            I find is a bit maddening, disturbing, that thinking (?) humans would rather something be made, “by magic”, than to consider what actually could have caused it. Case(s) in point; the inane ideas on finding religious objects, intact, not burned. They would prefer to believe a god or gods decided to allow the paper to not burn, than to consider why paper (of all kinds), throughout the complex, did not burn. Were this an attack on the financial system, would it not be reasonable for all that paper to burn? Were it against Wall Street, should not have all the ticker-tapes burnt, to ash? Yet, neither happened. The metals, of course, dissociated. They turned to dust. Many people; most Americans, anyway, believe that an utter impossibility, because they cannot comprehend (and will not comprehend when taught by rote rather than reason) what, “solid steel” (for example) is. It is atoms. They move. They are in constant movement, pushing and pulling against one another, forcing themselves to maintain shape or, “solid”. The very best video I have yet seen, on this topic, was from around 1960, and was called, “What Is Solid?”. When one comprehends what this is (solid), one can then better understand how energy (static fields) can be used to disrupt the atoms. That is the whole premise of directing energy and directed-energy technology and weaponry. Because so many won’t even take the time (and it may take a lot of time; it did, for me..) to attempt to understand, they fly off the handle on all things, “DEW”.
            Somehow, Westerners must be taught in a better fashion, so that the comprehension level is much better. Otherwise, they will continue to allow themselves to be tricked by the liars and fools, snake-oil salesmen, of our time. This is how I see the, “alt media”; the, “911 truth movement”; all a bunch of fools and sellers of snake-oil.
            I have purchased the book, WDTTG?, more than once. I have given away three copies, now, and will probably purchase more, as monies allow.
            Cheers to you, Thomas Porter. Thank you for such well thought out and composed replies.

            Like

      • annebeck58 says:

        By the way, not a post by the Wikidiots should be taken at face value. So much, contained therein, is bad, scientifically. But, they really don’t care, as long as the kids think it’s right. Proving it cannot be right (really, on any topic I’ve yet looked at, in Wiki), seems to not matter, any more. I’d like to know how we fix this when the kids are being taught by rote, not reason… It is a very sorry state we’re in.

        Like

  2. annebeck58 says:

    I’ve been perusing these internets, and continually come across ugly commentary about Dr Wood. I will say, I am of the camp which does not appreciate the use of food-terms, “wheat chex, cheetos”, and other things I don’t see, “rolled-up carpet”, and wish Dr Wood would stick with proper, scientific, terminology. However, I would say this; Dr Judy Wood is the only accredited person to bring forth factual evidence of what did happen on 9-11-01, and in the aftermath of this event. I find it disheartening that so many people are allowing others to do their thinking for them. Because their gurus call Dr Judy Wood names, and poo-poo her facts (which they call theory?), these hangers-on do the same. Not one person, as far as I’ve been able to find, is yet to, “debunk”, the work of Dr Wood. Instead, they call names, make other disparaging comments, and assign theories to her. Not a bit of the many posts of/about Dr Wood stand on their own.
    I wish the people of this world would just do what Dr Judy Wood has suggested and requested; LOOK at the FACTS. Comprehend the truths, first, and then work out what actually happened, that day, based on these facts. Stop making up garbage, people!

    Like

Tell us what you really think- no moderation necessary!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s